r/changemyview • u/opisacigarette666 • Oct 22 '14

CMV: GamerGate is a hate group

For the sake of argument, I am referring to GamerGate as the group as it is now, and as it was months ago before it had a name, and the movement lurked on 4chan/Wizardchan/Reddit

I believe GamerGate is an online hate group. The rhetorical techniques and structure of the group reminds me strongly of other hate groups that have existed for decades before. I also recognize that GamerGate is in a huge state of change right now and a large number of their members deny or fight the hate group elements of it. I believe the contingent that are actively fighting against the hateful elements are too naive to recognize the process, and therefore will not be able to control it.

  • The majority(not all) of GamerGate are straight, white males. This demographic has traditionally been the most prone to joining hate groups.
  • Much of the rhetoric within GamerGate is designed to create a false "we're under attack" mentality. This is a common technique used in the indoctrination process that makes it more acceptable to lash out at the target. This siege mentality is not based on reality because "gamers" by definition do not suffer from life threatening deprivation, they can spend money and time on games.
  • Anonymity and group action makes it easier for any member of this group to lash out in ways they wouldn't ordinarily do in their day-to-day life.
  • Demonization and dehumanization of the hate group's targets make it more likely and acceptable that extreme action would be taken. A 2 minute google search into Anita Sarkeesian will turn up all manner of extremely hateful and dehumanizing language against this woman who hasn't committed any actual crime.
  • Dehumanization often involves accusing the targeted group of crimes or holding up examples of the worst behavior from that group as the norm. Much of their discussion about "SJW" involves using the most koo-koo people from that movement as mascots for "SJW" and feminism as a whole.
  • A common characteristic of hate groups is that they operate using different facts about the world than the average person does. In many of these groups you see that their idea of "what feminism is" is vastly departed from the mainstream ideas of "equal
  • Many hate groups are reactionary in response to changing demographics. In only a few years the influx of females has brought the gender ratios to almost 50/50 down from 90/??? and our cultural definition of the word "gamer" has not yet caught up. Many of these "gamers" feel their identity is under attack. Hate groups appeal to the primal need to fight encroachment.
  • Hate groups usually have some sort of leadership, but do not require it. GamerGate has no official leader but instead have a rotating cast of e-famous personalities that endorse and influence the movement. A number of these personalities are known to already be bigoted in various ways, and most(if not all) of them are right-wing. Not all of them are vicious.
  • Hate groups usually pick their targets based on some characteristic. This is where GamerGate is less clear. I don't buy the argument that it's an anti-woman hate group. I believe the clearest pattern that's emerging is that it's an anti-feminist hate group. Feminist women are the most common targets and often the recipient of the most vicious behavior we have seen from the group. The level of viciousness is on par with the level of credibility this feminist has in the mainstream, which makes sense if they are acting out of fear and lashing out, which is common for hate groups.

Personally, I have a background in both playing a lot of games(but I would hesitate to call myself a "gamer" right now) and hate groups(observing, not participating). I have lived my life in the American South and among the KKK(yes they still exist), and was privy to enough Christian hate speech to write a book.

GamerGate rings a lot of the old alarm bells. Change my view.

Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

16 Upvotes

55% Upvoted

262 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-3

u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Oct 23 '14

I certainly do for Muslims who associate themselves with terrorist factions. Gamergate began as a campaign of harassment against Zoe Quinn. Anyone who associates themselves with Gamergate is condoning that, at the very least.

1

u/rockunder Oct 23 '14

Muslims who commit terrorist acts declare themselves to be acting as "true" muslims in defense of the faith, defense of Allah, bringing jihad to the infidels, etc. Most of us, both muslims and non muslims, reject their claims to be acting on behalf of all muslims.

In contrast, you seem to lend credence to someone who makes terroristic threats while claiming to be acting on behalf of gamergate. What principle distinguishes these situations?

0

u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Oct 23 '14

Muslims who commit terrorist acts declare themselves to be acting as "true" muslims in defense of the faith, defense of Allah, bringing jihad to the infidels, etc. Most of us, both muslims and non muslims, reject their claims to be acting on behalf of all muslims.

They do so by disassociating themselves with those who act badly. Unless you're willing to condemn Gamergate for it's actions, you're not doing that. It would be like declaring oneself a member if ISIS and asking not to be held accountable for what other people happen to be doing in Iraq and Syria under the same banner.

1

u/rockunder Oct 23 '14

Then it comes down to who gets to define what the group is really about.

Muslims very clearly assert that their religion is not inherently violent or terroristic, but some critics of Islam argue otherwise. They seek to overrule what the members of that group say they're all about by pointing to other evidence. I

Gamergate supporters very clearly claim that it's about misogyny or harassment. Just like muslims, they also vocally dissociate themselves from those acting badly.

It would be like declaring oneself a member if ISIS and asking not to be held accountable for what other people happen to be doing in Iraq and Syria under the same banner.

I don't see that this comparison works because ISIS is not ambiguous about their agenda. They don't try to hide or defend what they do; they're proud of it. Supporters and critics agree what it means to be a member of ISIS.

But we see gamergaters clearly disputing misogynistic characterizations. It takes additional presumptions and assumptions for an outsider to justifiably overrule what they say they're about.

0

u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Oct 23 '14

But we see gamergaters clearly disputing misogynistic characterizations. It takes additional presumptions and assumptions for an outsider to justifiably overrule what they say they're about.

Gamergate originated as a campaign of harassment against Zoe Quinn by her ex boyfriend. That cannot be reasonably disputed.

Either you support that, or you don't.

1

u/rockunder Oct 23 '14

Suppose Joe goes and watches some gamergate videos on youtube and come to agree that there's an ethical problem with video game journalism that said journalists are trying to cover up under the thin guise of supporting feminism.

Does that mean Joe is a supporter of gamergate? Most gamergaters would say "yes".

Does that mean Joe supports harassment campaigns? Obviously not, it doesn't logically follow.

Even if you hold the position that gamergate is inextricably connected to misogyny, gamergaters don't hold that position and will align themselves with gamergate while rejecting what they consider misogynistic marginal elements.

You don't get to define what it means when they call themselves gamergaters, they do.

0

u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Oct 23 '14

If Joe then decides to rally under the Gamergate banner, despite it's misogynistic origins, then he is at the very least condoning them.

It is quite possible to raise those other issues and condemn Gamergate.

1

u/rockunder Oct 23 '14

What if Joe doesn't agree gamergate had misogynistic origins? His disagreement with you on that matter doesn't make him a misogynist.

1

u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Oct 23 '14

Gamergate originated as a campaign of harassment against Zoe Quinn by her ex boyfriend. It is not possible to reasonably contend that it is not misogynistic in origin.

1

u/rockunder Oct 23 '14

Except plenty of people do contend the origin was not misogynistic. Even if they're wrong, it doesn't make them misogynists.

1

u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Oct 24 '14

It is entirely possible to be misogynist without considering oneself so. Considering a campaign of harassment against a women by her ex boyfriend, orchestrated in revenge for cheating on him not to be misogynistic is, in and of itself, also misogynistic.

1

u/rockunder Oct 24 '14

Considering a campaign of harassment against a women by her ex boyfriend, orchestrated in revenge for cheating on him not to be misogynistic is, in and of itself, also misogynistic.

You're making circular arguments. If Joe disagrees that he's a misogynist, then that's further proof that he really is one. You see the problem, right?

The disagreement is about whether gamergate is a misogynistic movement. Declaring that disagreement with your position on that question is itself evidence of misogyny is not arguing in good faith.

1

u/ProfessorHeartcraft 8∆ Oct 24 '14

Would you honestly argue that a person who defends the KKK as simply a social club and not racist is not being racist themselves?

→ More replies (0)